Need to write the math before I start in on the code.

Eric Bellm: can you please read through and comment on sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7? You can read other parts of the document if you like, but those are the sections that I have made the most changes to, in comparison with Pierre Astier's original text. In particular, I'd like to know if my mathematics is clear and self-consistent, and if my derivation is relatively clear. You should be able to build it by running pdflatex jointcal.tex twice (to get all references). Let me know if compiling it gives you trouble.

Pierre Astier: I've significantly re-worked the derivations and redefined some of the notation, in order to ensure we weren't overloading any letters. Any comments or suggestions you have about the above sections would be welcome, particularly if I mis-interpreted any of the notation or text.

I've responded to your comments, Eric.

I'm particularly wondering what you thought about Figure 1, and the notation used in Section 3.3 (Minimization approach) and 3.4 (Photometry example).

My only confusion is what the gamma_k subscript is in Figure 1.

While I won't say the notation used is intuitive, I didn't find it hindered my understanding, and I don't have obvious suggestions for improvement.

Thanks. I was torn about that k subscript; I had put it there to show that there were a bunch of different \gamma s, but it may not be necessary. Is it clear enough if I just have \gamma=(1,1) and \gamma=(m,n) at the top of the figure?

I think so--since you don't use the subscript notation for \gamma elsewhere.

Ok, I've removed it, and I think it's ok without that extra k. Thank you for your review feedback!

I also incorporated some feedback from Pierre Astier: thank you as well!

Merged and done. I've filed DM-11790 to convert this into a DMTN. I'll pull it out of the jointcal repo when I do so.